I may remember quantum mechanics incorrectly, it's been 40 years. What I
remember my prof saying is that rayleigh scattering and refraction are the
same physically at the atomic level, having to do with the physical
characteristics of "light" (photons).
If this is an incorrect memory, please correct me.
Thanks
Jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: dealing with creationism and intelligent design
>I would not inform people that the sky is blue due to refraction. It's
>not.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: dealing with creationism and intelligent design
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:43:22 -0500
>
> And when you inform people that the sky is blue because of quantum physics
> (refraction), they are likely to look at you like you're from Mars, too.
> But it's true!
>
> BTW, there is some good research on very limited uses of homeopathic
> substances that appear to indicate that its effects are real and can be
> measured, with the most serious affliction being asthma. I do not
> recommend it myself, because I don't know enough about it to do so.
>
> http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/res_trials_asthma.html
>
> Regards
> Jonathan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: dealing with creationism and intelligent design
>
>
>>One might argue, as I do in my physics class, that there are parallels
>>between religion and science, in that scientists "believe" that certain
>>scientific theories are "true". When one is involved in research, one
>>perhaps has "faith" that one's results are valid, and are consistent with
>>the theory that is being invoked to explain the results. This "faith"
>>becomes stronger as more results appear, and the work can be reproduced in
>>other labs. And the "faith" crumbles (or should, at least) when careful
>>experiments contradict.
>>
>>A huge difference, however, that may be lost on some younger students, is
>>that religious "theories" are nonfalsifiable, and are therefore not
>>scientific and may not be appropriately compared with science.
>>
>>I also mention astrology and homeopathy as examples of some of the
>>antiscience nonsense out there that some people believe in.
>>
>>BTW, most of my students are African, Middle-eastern, Asian, Eastern
>>European, Caribbean and Hispanic, with all the expected religions:
>>Catholic and Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish. Unfortunately,
>>most consider it impolite (or perhaps impolitic) to challenge the teacher,
>>despite my efforts to encourage them to do so.
>>
>>A couple of questions that sometimes provoke discussion are "Why is the
>>sky blue?" and "Why is the sky dark at night?". Usually the answers are
>>quite amazing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----Original Message Follows----
>>From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: dealing with creationism and intelligent design
>>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:46:45 +0000
>>
>>Frank, many thanks for this very interesting post. The paper in BioScience
>>I
>>refer to in the IHT piece was by Steven Verhey, formerly at Washington
>>Central University, and he employed a pedagogic technique called engaging
>>prior belief. I forget now who the original guy was behind this approach
>>but
>>Verhey cites him in the paper. I can dig it out if anyone is interested.
>>
>>best, Michael
>>
>>On 2/24/07, Frank Rosenthal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for this post and your article. I do not teach classes in
>>>biology. But your approach seems reasonable; and it does seem to be
>>>supported by the one study you cited. I occasionally broach the subject
>>>of
>>>evolution in my environmental health science classes, as when I discuss
>>>the
>>>body's intricate defenses against airborne particles, which presumably
>>>evolved (although some might say were "created"). The evolution
>>>perspective is interesting because some aspects of the physiological
>>>defense
>>>systems, which probably evolved to deal with infectious agents, may now
>>>be
>>>counterproductive when dealing with the nonviable particulates found in
>>>air
>>>pollution in our technological society. Although I refer to the debate
>>>about evolution in passing, I do not belabor it, because I consider the
>>>subject peripheral to the course focus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>My overall experience in teaching is that almost anything I can do to get
>>>students "involved" in a subject is beneficial, particularly if they are
>>>encouraged to come up with logical arguments to justify their position.
>>>And encouraging a debate about evolution seems like it could definitely
>>>be
>>>productive. I think one just has to be careful to: 1) continue to uphold
>>>the value of scientific thinking and investigation (I think it's fine for
>>>the instructor to "weigh in" on this value) and 2) make sure that the
>>>single
>>>topic does not "overshadow" (e.g. in time and effort) one's overall
>>>educational objectives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>All that being said, I think the conflict between evolution and belief in
>>>a supreme being is sometimes artificial. Why can't evolution be part of
>>>God's plan? The problem is that most "creationists" don't just want
>>>people
>>>to believe in God; they want people to believe in their God and their
>>>particular religious doctrine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In terms of the difference between high school and college students,
>>>obviously there can be great differences in "readiness to learn" even
>>>between students in the same class. So I am not sure a big distinction
>>>between the two groups is warranted. My guess is that both educational
>>>levels will benefit from this type of discussion. However, probably a
>>>lot
>>>will depend on the teacher and how it is handled.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>***************************************
>>>
>>>Frank S. Rosenthal, Ph.D.
>>>
>>>Associate Professor
>>>
>>>Purdue University School of Health Sciences
>>>
>>>550 Stadium Mall Dr.
>>>
>>>West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
>>>
>>>tel: 765-494-0812, fax: 765-496-1377,
>>>
>>>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>***************************************
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>*From:* Science for the People Discussion List [mailto:
>>>[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Michael Balter
>>>*Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:55 AM
>>>*To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>*Subject:* dealing with creationism and intelligent design
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Since I am relatively new to this list I don't know what sort of
>>>discussions have taken place here about these subjects, but I thought
>>>list
>>>members might be interested in seeing (or maybe not!) an opinion piece I
>>>wrote on this for the International Herald Tribune a few weeks ago. I
>>>have
>>>gotten a lot of grief for these views from more diehard Darwinians but
>>>would
>>>be very interested in knowing how a lefty crowd sees these things. I have
>>>no
>>>preconceptions about that. This article should be freely available at
>>>this
>>>link, but let me know if you have trouble accessing it as I also posted
>>>it
>>>on my Web site.
>>>
>>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/opinion/edbalter.php
>>>
>>>--
>>>www.michaelbalter.com
>>>
>>>******************************************
>>>Michael Balter
>>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>******************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>www.michaelbalter.com
>>
>>******************************************
>>Michael Balter
>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>>[log in to unmask]
>>******************************************
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Win a ZuneT-make MSNŽ your homepage for your chance to win!
>>http://homepage.msn.com/zune?icid=hmetagline
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> month. Intro*Terms
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>